Has Pat Shipman really proven that Neanderthals didn't also have domesticated wolves? Even if they didn't, it doesn't make this current idea correct. Neanderthals weren't 'wiped out' so much as 'absorbed' over thousands of years of interbreeding. This is proven by the presence of Neanderthal DNA in some modern human populations. As for the white sclera of the eyes...Neanderthals had those as well, being part of the genus homo. None of what she's saying seems that convincing in my view (yep, that's me expressing a personal opinion). She and Stringer have never gotten over the fact that their pet theory (early modern humans wiped out and 'replaced' all previous branches of the human family tree) has been blown out of the water by the DNA evidence. They continue to peddle their ideas despite evidence to the contrary. I find it a bit sad.

She and Chris Stringer love theorising, but often have little in the way of evidence for their (many and varied) claims about Neanderthals. I know it sounds more dramatic and exciting for a mainstream audience - the idea of an 'invasion' or clash between various groups of early humans - but there's plenty of evidence that shows Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal populations co-existed in the same areas for thousands of years. That's a pretty slow invasion.

She seems to want human history to read like an Elfquest comic, and I'm not buying into it. She's had some good ideas (the 'cut marks' she's famous for identifying), but she and Chris Stringer both need to get over that fact that their precious 'replacement theory' (aka, 'Out of Africa') doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Even Stringer had to admit (reluctantly) there was cross-breeding among groups of different early humans (the 'modified' replacement theory...aka, the reluctant acknowledgement of fact-based evidence once it became clear they'd been totally wrong for decades). We now know of the Neanderthals and Denisovans, and there may be others.

No one has to take my word for it, either - here are some articles which describe what I'm referring to in more detail than I could hope to go into (and there's more than just one source):

We also know about Homo floresiensis, the presence of which neatly throws a spanner into the works of the replacement theory. The replacement theory is sanitised, politically correct codswallop (warning - another personal opinion). The multiregional hypothesis is the only one supported by actual fossil and DNA evidence.

Regarding my opinions in the previous post: this is not to say that Yowies don't hate dogs - just that there's no real evidence that Yowies are descended from Neanderthals (although anyone who has European ancestry partially is).

Regarding my opinions in the previous post: this is not to say that Yowies don't hate dogs - just that there's no real evidence that Yowies are descended from Neanderthals (although anyone who has European ancestry partially is).